Rags
TFF member
Posts: 1,210
|
Post by Rags on Sept 3, 2010 8:14:30 GMT
...Elliott didn't impress in that period either, not only myself but DT,s report and a number of other people backed that up. That's not strictly true, though, is it? I can't comment on Dave Thomas as the HE has mysteriously failed to load their report of the game onto the website, but if you can quote his opinion of Benyon, I'd be very grateful. The two people who have mention DT's commentary on this forum didn't mention Benyon's performance as part of that. The only two posters who felt that Benyon was poor were yourself and lambethgull. Nickgull and tufc01 were on the fence. wistongull68, Chris Hayes and myself were positive about his performance. So that's 3-2 in favour of Benyon and 2 effectively abstaining. Add the Football League Paper and it becomes 4-2. Add in Dave Thomas if he did say he wasn't impressed with Benyon and still more people on here thought Benyon was effective than don't. You can say that your two friends agreed with you. wistongull68's brother agreed with him. I can tell of the four people behind me in the second half who were all in agreement that Benyon played well. I'm sure you can tell of 12 people around you who thought he was pants but we can carry on like that all day. As has been stated by many on here, it's all about opinions. Opinions will differ by the very nature that they are subjective - it seems that you want to make your opinions count more than anyone else's. At the time, I took issue with your scoring but was happy with your opinion. You've tried to make that into a fight about opinions which was never my argument. Now here you are trying to justify your opinion by strength of numbers. You're coming across as a cyber-bully which I would hope is not your intention. |
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Sept 3, 2010 10:13:38 GMT
...Elliott didn't impress in that period either, not only myself but DT,s report and a number of other people backed that up. The two people who have The only two posters who felt that Benyon was poor were yourself and lambethgull. Nickgull and tufc01 were on the fence. wistongull68, Chris Hayes and myself were positive about his performance. So that's 3-2 in favour of Benyon and 2 effectively abstaining. Add the Football League Paper and it becomes 4-2. Sorry, but my view trumps all (whether Warickgull or anyone else agrees with it or not). |
|
|
|
Post by Ditmar van Nostrilboy on Sept 3, 2010 12:16:06 GMT
The only two posters who felt that Benyon was poor were yourself and lambethgull. Nickgull and tufc01 were on the fence. wistongull68, Chris Hayes and myself were positive about his performance. So that's 3-2 in favour of Benyon and 2 effectively abstaining. If you're going to start quoting who said what, then tufc01 actually wrote about Warwicks comments . I would hardly call that fence sitting Rags, perhaps you may view it as such? And since when did 7 out of 10 become an average basemark figure? Dave Thomas's comments on Benyon were on the radio commentary as Aussie points out. As for the accusation of cyber bullying against Warwick, that really is pathetic. You seem to be quite happy to trash his views because they don't coincide with yours. Does that make you a cyber bully as well? An attitude like yours is hardly going to encourage frequenters of other boards to remain active on here in the future... |
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Sept 3, 2010 12:45:21 GMT
Aren't some people taking this all a bit too seriously?
I read match reports of games I've been at and find that some describe what I saw perfectly and that some seem to be talking about a different game. I make a mental note of which posters fall into which category so that when I read reports of games which I haven't been to, I know how much weight to attach to each report. I'm not saying anyone is "right" or "wrong" but that I get to know which people watch football in the way that I do.
Warwick's use of the term "disinterested" was ill-advised and to then counter someone who disagreed with "my mates said the same" was unnecessary. But neither are hanging offences - you wouldn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.
What has caused the trouble (plus ça change!) is Merse wading in in his usual "style". I still can't work out whether he deliberately sets out to irritate people or if he genuinely can't understand the kind of things that do irritate people. I don't think he is going to change either way.
I don't know how many times I have said it, but it definitely is possible to debate a point fiercely without winding people up. It is not a straight choice between "bland" and "punch-ups". If it were, then forums really would not be worth bothering with. This forum is better than that.
Case dismissed - both sides to pay their own costs.
|
|
Rags
TFF member
Posts: 1,210
|
Post by Rags on Sept 3, 2010 12:51:00 GMT
If you're going to start quoting who said what, then tufc01 actually wrote about Warwicks comments . I would hardly call that fence sitting Rags, perhaps you may view it as such? And since when did 7 out of 10 become an average basemark figure? Dave Thomas's comments on Benyon were on the radio commentary as Aussie points out. As for the accusation of cyber bullying against Warwick, that really is pathetic. You seem to be quite happy to trash his views because they don't coincide with yours. Does that make you a cyber bully as well? An attitude like yours is hardly going to encourage frequenters of other boards to remain active on here in the future... Fair enough, Fletch: tufc01 calls Benyon average, which isn't good and it isn't poor. So fence-sitting isn't an ideal term but he's not in the group who agree with warwickgull, which was the crux of my argument. I believe I wrote today that 6 = average, not 7. I repeat that aussie's quote on this forum of what DT said doesn't mention Benyon. I asked for a quote of what DT said because I don't know what it was. I'm not accusing warwickgull of cyber-bullying, I am pointing out that his stance in challenging everyone who disagrees with his opinion, the very point he appears to object to, can come across as cyber-bullying; and I add that I don't think that is what he intends. That is not an accusation, that is an observation. Read the post again, digest, analyse because you don't appear to have done that. Not an accusation, just an observation seeing as you got three of your points wrong and the other one is a matter of terminology which doesn't detract from the argument. If an attitude like mine is hardly going to encourage frequenters of other boards to remain active on here in the future when ridicule rather than debate is their currency, then thank you very much, I'll continue. I am trying to encourage this board to return to the days of intelligent debate; something that appears to have passed you by judging by this response. |
|
|
|
Post by loyalgull on Sept 3, 2010 12:58:37 GMT
its all about opinions and what some people see that others dont.I have been gobsmacked sometimes atfer seeing us play,to come on here and read how brilliant someone has been,i think no they werent,but of course,we read the game in our own way.To me the result is the be all and end all,and life is a little to short to batter each other on the keyboard as it really isnt going to change anything,and that by the way is aimed at nobody
|
|
merse
TFF member
Posts: 2,684
|
Post by merse on Sept 3, 2010 13:17:35 GMT
What has caused the trouble (plus ça change!) is Merse wading in in his usual style. I still can't work out whether he deliberately sets out to irritate people or if he genuinely can't understand the kind of things that do irritate people. I don't think he is going to change either way. I don't know how many times I have said it, but it definitely is possible to debate a point fiercely without winding people up.  Any poster will "wade in" in their "usual style" Jon, it's what individuals do. You say it is possible to debate a point fiercely without winding people up.................I would say it is possible to debate a point fiercely without getting wound up. You see, we are different animals Jon, that is what a cross section of people are; so if you can't accept that then you have to narrow the cross section from which you gain your contributions. What will wind one person up will not bother another, what would wind me up if I allowed it to are the interminable match predictions, mutual platitudes exchanged over social arrangements and statistics. That is me, you'll be hard pressed to come up with an example of me contributing to such discussion. So to accuse me of "causing trouble by wading in my usual style" is rather condescending in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Ditmar van Nostrilboy on Sept 3, 2010 13:37:39 GMT
Fair enough, Fletch: tufc01 calls Benyon average, which isn't good and it isn't poor. So fence-sitting isn't an ideal term but he's not in the group who agree with warwickgull, which was the crux of my argument. I believe I wrote today that 6 = average, not 7. I repeat that aussie's quote on this forum of what DT said doesn't mention Benyon. I asked for a quote of what DT said because I don't know what it was. I'm not accusing warwickgull of cyber-bullying, I am pointing out that his stance in challenging everyone who disagrees with his opinion, the very point he appears to object to, can come across as cyber-bullying; and I add that I don't think that is what he intends. That is not an accusation, that is an observation. Read the post again, digest, analyse because you don't appear to have done that. Not an accusation, just an observation seeing as you got three of your points wrong and the other one is a matter of terminology which doesn't detract from the argument. If an attitude like mine is hardly going to encourage frequenters of other boards to remain active on here in the future when ridicule rather than debate is their currency, then thank you very much, I'll continue. I am trying to encourage this board to return to the days of intelligent debate; something that appears to have passed you by judging by this response. Intelligent debate? What pretentious claptrap you spout. Read the 1st 12 words of the quote you refer to. In fact, as you seem to have problems reading, I will quote it again . Obviously that doesn't correlate to agreeing with someone in your world. On the subject of what constitutes an "average" mark you posted Your words not mine. Changed your mind now by any chance? You asked I had the obvious nerve to point out that it was a radio commentary, assuming you might grasp the point that a "copy & paste" would be highly unlikely. For your info though, DT did refer to Benners having a "disappointing game" several times. And are you not doing exactly the same with regard to someone who has a different opinion to you? As for I would suggest you might wish to try following your suggestion. As analysis goes, it was pretty shoddy workmanship by any standards. |
|
Rags
TFF member
Posts: 1,210
|
Post by Rags on Sept 3, 2010 13:50:55 GMT
I am clearly wasting my time debating anything with you, as you appear to have the capacity to make some words mean something other than what they mean. Fair enough, I'll defend your right to write what you want to. |
|
|
|
Post by jeremyb on Sept 3, 2010 14:04:47 GMT
Fair enough, Fletch: tufc01 calls Benyon average, which isn't good and it isn't poor. So fence-sitting isn't an ideal term but he's not in the group who agree with warwickgull, which was the crux of my argument. I believe I wrote today that 6 = average, not 7. I repeat that aussie's quote on this forum of what DT said doesn't mention Benyon. I asked for a quote of what DT said because I don't know what it was. I'm not accusing warwickgull of cyber-bullying, I am pointing out that his stance in challenging everyone who disagrees with his opinion, the very point he appears to object to, can come across as cyber-bullying; and I add that I don't think that is what he intends. That is not an accusation, that is an observation. Read the post again, digest, analyse because you don't appear to have done that. Not an accusation, just an observation seeing as you got three of your points wrong and the other one is a matter of terminology which doesn't detract from the argument. If an attitude like mine is hardly going to encourage frequenters of other boards to remain active on here in the future when ridicule rather than debate is their currency, then thank you very much, I'll continue. I am trying to encourage this board to return to the days of intelligent debate; something that appears to have passed you by judging by this response. Intelligent debate? What pretentious claptrap you spout. Read the 1st 12 words of the quote you refer to. In fact, as you seem to have problems reading, I will quote it again . Obviously that doesn't correlate to agreeing with someone in your world. On the subject of what constitutes an "average" mark you posted Your words not mine. Changed your mind now by any chance? You asked I had the obvious nerve to point out that it was a radio commentary, assuming you might grasp the point that a "copy & paste" would be highly unlikely. For your info though, DT did refer to Benners having a "disappointing game" several times. And are you not doing exactly the same with regard to someone who has a different opinion to you? As for I would suggest you might wish to try following your suggestion. As analysis goes, it was pretty shoddy workmanship by any standards. Bored now. |
|
Rob
TFF member
Posts: 3,607
Favourite Player: Asa Hall
|
Post by Rob on Sept 3, 2010 14:23:52 GMT
Jon - I like your style. Each party to pay their own costs sumarrises it pretty well to me. Rags/Ditmar - "Order, Order!".... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Sept 3, 2010 14:34:19 GMT
Rarely can so much have been written about so little...which makes each additional contribution on the matter more amusing than the last in my eyes. Keep it coming lads ;D
|
|
merse
TFF member
Posts: 2,684
|
Post by merse on Sept 3, 2010 16:18:06 GMT
Rarely can so much have been written about so little It's a battle of wills between the "Wets" and the "Drys" really isn't it. On the one hand you have those who object to debating in the traditional forum manner because they see this as a social networking site in which to offer a different opinion or challenge an opinion of someone else is to "belittle them"Rags and I are of the old school who wish to preserve the right to free speech in which we do NOT insult, abuse or threaten people. In the past months I can tell you I have been the subject of PMs from a poster containing thinley veiled "invitations" to meet him, numerous idiotic and empty threats from another to sue me for libel and accusing me of being a liar and only in the past week been the subject of personal abuse in postings on here. Have I complained? No, I have got on with it; dealt with the stupid PMs in the way that we ALL can ~ prevented them from using that facility towards me again and treated the personal abuse with the contempt that it deserves. Has Rags gone running to the moderators when he is receiving abuse from people who haven't even the intellect to fully understand what he has posted? No, I very much doubt he has because I know he can hold his own in any debate without recourse to abuse, villification or threat. It's time a lot of people on here grew up and started acting like grown men and not children. |
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Sept 3, 2010 16:26:21 GMT
Any poster will "wade in" in their "usual style" Jon, it's what individuals do.. ....So to accuse me of "causing trouble by wading in my usual style" is rather condescending in my opinion. My sincere apologies for any offence caused - that was not my intention at all. I just wish you'd bitten your tongue or moderated your style in order to avoid what INEVITABLY happened next - for the good of this forum. But I don't always get what I want. |
|
