| Would appear that we are not in for an Evan loan on 22:02 - Jan 4 with 894 views | NeedhamChris |
| Would appear that we are not in for an Evan loan on 21:52 - Jan 4 by StokieBlue |
Thanks for your input.
You've also got quirks where you often post about McKenna then have to roll it back later. Why do you continue to do that but feel you can take the moral stance and criticise other posters?
You call it a mistake but it's in every article, he knows exactly what he's doing
SB |
Seems apt that your response to my criticism of you not being able to engage on a topic without bringing up past posts is to bring up my past posts rather than engage in the topic.
That's quite a stretch in terms of trying to create an equivalence - isn't it? Your argument appears to be that because I sometimes post nonsense in the heat of the moment (a charge I would plead guilty to), that I lose the right to call out what I perceive to be baiting and bullying when I see it.
You can be wrong about things whilst being a decent person, just like you can be right about something and still be a bully. |  |
|  |
| Would appear that we are not in for an Evan loan on 22:10 - Jan 4 with 829 views | StokieBlue |
| Would appear that we are not in for an Evan loan on 22:02 - Jan 4 by NeedhamChris |
Seems apt that your response to my criticism of you not being able to engage on a topic without bringing up past posts is to bring up my past posts rather than engage in the topic.
That's quite a stretch in terms of trying to create an equivalence - isn't it? Your argument appears to be that because I sometimes post nonsense in the heat of the moment (a charge I would plead guilty to), that I lose the right to call out what I perceive to be baiting and bullying when I see it.
You can be wrong about things whilst being a decent person, just like you can be right about something and still be a bully. |
It's also a stretch to say that posting history shouldn't be taken into account as part of the overall context.
Your post to me was literally citing historic posting so it would seem that you're allowed to enter a topic citing historic posting as the basis of your post but you take issue with others doing the same
To question others false equivalences whilst essentially doing the same yourself isn't an ideal basis to construct a solid argument.
I doubt either of us want to argue these semantics all night though so I'll leave it there. Frimley has said it was a mistake, I've accepted that even though it's odd given his knowledge and I'll leave it there.
SB |  |
| |
| Would appear that we are not in for an Evan loan on 22:13 - Jan 4 with 807 views | Help |
Sorry didn't mean to downvote. |  |
| |
| Would appear that we are not in for an Evan loan on 22:14 - Jan 4 with 810 views | Vic |
| Would appear that we are not in for an Evan loan on 21:52 - Jan 4 by StokieBlue |
Thanks for your input.
You've also got quirks where you often post about McKenna then have to roll it back later. Why do you continue to do that but feel you can take the moral stance and criticise other posters?
You call it a mistake but it's in every article, he knows exactly what he's doing
SB |
He does indeed - he’s had to go back on my div list.
But at the same time, since you came back you do seem to be quite a bit more negative. |  |
| |
| Would appear that we are not in for an Evan loan on 22:18 - Jan 4 with 776 views | StokieBlue |
| Would appear that we are not in for an Evan loan on 22:14 - Jan 4 by Vic |
He does indeed - he’s had to go back on my div list.
But at the same time, since you came back you do seem to be quite a bit more negative. |
You may be right, something for me to think about.
However one could argue that 25 years of tolerance got me nowhere except abuse and pile ons from a certain section of the forum.
The abuse I received in threads and PMs wasn't ideal. A certain element on here like to single out people and wear them down when their views don't align.
One of the biggest culprits is doing it on this thread.
SB | |
| |
| Would appear that we are not in for an Evan loan on 22:22 - Jan 4 with 741 views | FrimleyBlue |
| Would appear that we are not in for an Evan loan on 22:01 - Jan 4 by StokieBlue |
As you say, that's a permanent transfer though so it still doesn't make sense.
You say it's a genuine mistake so I apologise for saying it was deliberate but to me it's hard to internally reconcile how you can get the two things confused given how much you read and know about Town and the transfer market. You're knowledgeable on the subject.
SB [Post edited 4 Jan 22:02]
|
Appreciate that. It was literally just a quick reply to op i didn't even put 2 and 2 together.
You can take that as my first and only stupid post ;) |  |
| |
| Would appear that we are not in for an Evan loan on 22:32 - Jan 4 with 696 views | NeedhamChris |
| Would appear that we are not in for an Evan loan on 22:10 - Jan 4 by StokieBlue |
It's also a stretch to say that posting history shouldn't be taken into account as part of the overall context.
Your post to me was literally citing historic posting so it would seem that you're allowed to enter a topic citing historic posting as the basis of your post but you take issue with others doing the same
To question others false equivalences whilst essentially doing the same yourself isn't an ideal basis to construct a solid argument.
I doubt either of us want to argue these semantics all night though so I'll leave it there. Frimley has said it was a mistake, I've accepted that even though it's odd given his knowledge and I'll leave it there.
SB |
You're right about not wanting to argue the semantics, and to be honest it feels like a deflection from the substantive issue in my original post. You seem happier to engage on the concept of argument structure than you do the argument itself.
I took issue with the way you jumped in on Frimmers on this thread and raked up past arguments again. I don't think you've offered any counter argument to the view that you are more enthusiastic about calling him out than anyone else. Why that is, only you'll know.
That's now twice you've either apologised or accepted his story whilst heavily qualifying it with your reasons for not believing him - to the point that any sincerity that might have been intended is lost. You seemingly can't resist point scoring, even in a so called apology. I think that's sad to see.
Edit: will add, I'll also leave this now. We all have people that grate on us, so understand that. I just wonder whether it'd be better for you both to just ignore contributions you disagree with [Post edited 4 Jan 22:34]
| |
| |
| Would appear that we are not in for an Evan loan on 22:33 - Jan 4 with 691 views | Vic |
| Would appear that we are not in for an Evan loan on 22:18 - Jan 4 by StokieBlue |
You may be right, something for me to think about.
However one could argue that 25 years of tolerance got me nowhere except abuse and pile ons from a certain section of the forum.
The abuse I received in threads and PMs wasn't ideal. A certain element on here like to single out people and wear them down when their views don't align.
One of the biggest culprits is doing it on this thread.
SB |
I’m truly sorry to hear that because for many years I thought you were one of the best, most balanced posters on here. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Would appear that we are not in for an Evan loan on 11:19 - Jan 5 with 408 views | Eireannach_gorm |
This thread went off in an unexpected direction. What I love about this forum is the diverse views the posters have but definitely don't like the intolerant attitude to differing opinions.
Back to the OP, a lot of Premiership clubs has been mentioned in connection with him but not Ipswich. I know he is coming back from injury but his physicality would be a great asset to us. |  | | |
| Would appear that we are not in for an Evan loan on 11:35 - Jan 5 with 377 views | Wallingford_Boy |
| Would appear that we are not in for an Evan loan on 21:06 - Jan 4 by NeedhamChris |
It's quite obvious he made a mistake, one that me and a couple of others have politely called him out for - without bringing up historic complaints.
This response is unnecessary though - you come across as a petty bully who became overcome with excitement at the chance to have another pop at this poster based on past posts.
I've never been one of the better and balanced posters on here, but you have - the demise to this level of pettiness is sad to see. |
Well said sir, seems a lot agree with you too. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
