Michael and Delia are “ devastated “

[PurpleCanary 5,582]

On 16/06/2023 at 11:08, PurpleCanary said:

Of all the sticks with which to beat the owners taking exception to this comment of theirs seems the feeblest, and that is among some pretty steep competition for feebleness.

😍🤩🥰🤩😍

[Mello Yello 2,303]

1 hour ago, Pugin said:

Trust me, if we gave him 9 months' of gardening leave, he would spent that 9 months working in the interests of Leeds United, at our expense. It would be a Godsend to him. He could still operate, develop his connections, make his enquiries, travel the world, arrange deals and contracts.

It would be gardening leave, not solitary confinement without a mobile phone!!! Gardening leave is not a good idea. 

Perhaps not 9 munfs gardening leave for our Stu then....They are very good points made above with reference to what scenario would more than likely occur if Stu was given that gardening leave....

May I hypothetically suggest (and as a penance) Stu being made to sit/stand in the snake-pit for home-games until his eventual departure from our club?.....He could then be amongst them society's sub-standard supporter snakey's and be their self-appointed cheer leader?....Maybe also give Stu a drum to thump as well?...It would certainly go some way to repair the broken bridges between him and those he upset/insulted and stereotyped.... 

On second thoughts....maybe not hypothetically have Stu in the Snake-pit until he flooks orft...but actually make it happen....

'Oh Yeah'....'Deep Joy'....

[Galactico 16]

On 14/06/2023 at 07:44, essex canary said:

Under self funding the bonuses paid from fans hard earned money. No development at Carrow Road but the apparent 8th. wonder of the world that looks like Alcatraz at Colney.

Is he sharing a cell with Al Capone?

 

[Google Bot 3,316]

8 hours ago, essex canary said:

It's amazing how those who have no sensitivity towards the word 'devastated' have such sensitivity to the word 'melodramatic.'

It's quite a long word, to be fair.  I think even Rachel Riley would have problems fitting that into her conundrum slot.

[Nora's Ghost 157]

Max to Leeds at a knock down price with Delia's blessing.

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,297]

On 20/06/2023 at 23:36, chicken said:

LOL back at you, and I don't need to, you demonstrate the highest levels of self righteousness that there is pretty much on this forum, and fairly regularly.

You clearly DO have a vendetta because as Purple quite rightly pointed out very early on, your 'take' is clearly so desperately grabbing at straws. You really want to die on the hill of taking righteous indignation on a personal statement made by owners that isn't at all controversial.

As if to underline this, one other person is trying to define the meaning of the term "devastated" so that they can give it a generic scaling...

At this point the only word relevant is "pathetic".

I even find myself agreeing with people who are basically saying "who cares, I am more interested in what has to be said about the current state of play with Attanasio" and it isn't because I own 1000 shares and want him to pay £100+ for each... 
 

There isn't in your case. You aren't here stating you wish they'd just leave, you are here over-analysing a statement by way of trying to find some form of criticism for them. Again, we get to this 50-shades of sh!t sort of argument. Because I am suggesting you are being rather desperate and have a vendetta, which you attempt to deny and only confirm further, it is impossible for you to conceive that on any level I agree with some aspects - hence why another poster seems to think I'm "part of the problem".

Interesting when I have been interviewed by journalists on Gentleman's Walk and had it broadcast as part of a report where-in I stated I felt it was time for Delia and Michael to step aside. The difference is I don't hate or dislike them, nor see a need to jump on every little thing, like this statement, to stick the knife in. It's plain stupid and pointless. There is literally nothing to gain here for that approach.

Not wrong. You criticised their statement. The "No need to say anything right now" is an added cowards escape route but is also an entirely different argument. Either you think there was no need to make a statement OR you think that there is but it was badly done. You can't really argue that it was crap if you didn't think it was needed at all, as if it wasn't needed at all, it wouldn't have mattered if it was good - it just wasn't needed.

I don't need to reply with a more informed view of you, you have already demonstrated that you apply insults without considering if you are more righteous - which you clearly are for picking such a tiny mole-hill to make into a mountain and die upon... Yet weirdly, other folks that dare question it are wrong and get told they are "self righteous". Yet you are the PR expert.

 

Wow. 

Shane Warne (RIP) has just lost his title 'King of Spin' 

[chicken 2,644]

4 hours ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Wow. 

Shane Warne (RIP) has just lost his title 'King of Spin' 

Again, that would be you. Your entire argument is 'spin'.

 

[essex canary 506]

5 hours ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Wow. 

Shane Warne (RIP) has just lost his title 'King of Spin' 

I am trying to explore the narcissistic spectrum in order to analyse why someone would call themselves 'chicken'. I will let you know when I reach some conclusions.

[chicken 2,644]

7 hours ago, essex canary said:

I am trying to explore the narcissistic spectrum in order to analyse why someone would call themselves 'chicken'. I will let you know when I reach some conclusions.

I've not hid why I am called chicken, in fact, way back when, I shared the story.

I would perhaps analyse your own self with that "narcissistic spectrum" stick you have, after all, you turn EVERY topic into being about you, what YOU are owed by the club and those who are nasty for not giving it to YOU.

Are you and CCC related by any chance? Only, I am trying to work out which is pot and which is kettle. Both of you seem to love attempting to spin every subject into the topic you actually want it to be, then, when the majority of folks turn on you, you try to find some form of undermining/insult which is more applicable to you than it is to the person you are attempting to tarnish.

Honestly, just carry on. At this point, folks are just watching you and laughing because it is so easy to predict your responses to topics before you've even posted on them.

Just look at the "what about Mrs Webber?" comment on the other thread. Nothing to do with her at all and you drag her into it? Why? 

[essex canary 506]

7 minutes ago, chicken said:

I've not hid why I am called chicken, in fact, way back when, I shared the story.

I would perhaps analyse your own self with that "narcissistic spectrum" stick you have, after all, you turn EVERY topic into being about you, what YOU are owed by the club and those who are nasty for not giving it to YOU.

Are you and CCC related by any chance? Only, I am trying to work out which is pot and which is kettle. Both of you seem to love attempting to spin every subject into the topic you actually want it to be, then, when the majority of folks turn on you, you try to find some form of undermining/insult which is more applicable to you than it is to the person you are attempting to tarnish.

Honestly, just carry on. At this point, folks are just watching you and laughing because it is so easy to predict your responses to topics before you've even posted on them.

Just look at the "what about Mrs Webber?" comment on the other thread. Nothing to do with her at all and you drag her into it? Why? 

The last sentence says it all really. When an organisation has an Executive Director for Vision and Strategy as distinct from a Chairperson then it must reasonably follow that all that organisations activities are inextricably linked with that individual. 

'When the majority of folks turn on me'.  I am sure the majority do not, some do including you but basically everyone should have left 'turning on people' in the school playground. If they haven't then perhaps  expect retaliation though even then, as you correctly observe, perhaps explaining better one's own position is the best response. There really is nothing narcissistic about that unless taken to Boris style excess.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 22, 2023 by essex canary

[chicken 2,644]

18 hours ago, essex canary said:

The last sentence says it all really. When an organisation has an Executive Director for Vision and Strategy as distinct from a Chairperson then it must reasonably follow that all that organisations activities are inextricably linked with that individual. 

'When the majority of folks turn on me'.  I am sure the majority do not, some do including you but basically everyone should have left 'turning on people' in the school playground. If they haven't then perhaps  expect retaliation though even then, as you correctly observe, perhaps explaining better one's own position is the best response. There really is nothing narcissistic about that unless taken to Boris style excess.

 

 

 

 

 

Talk about failing to read a room...

Not only have you explained your position, you have done so multiple times, easily 20+, including turning unrelated threads into an excuse to repeat your position.

People are generally tired of that BS. And yes, it is narcessistic to make everything about you. Without caring for anyone elses view or whether they could have a better understanding than you (already proven by others way more informed than me).

[essex canary 506]

22 minutes ago, chicken said:

Talk about failing to read a room...

Not only have you explained your position, you have done so multiple times, easily 20+, including turning unrelated threads into an excuse to repeat your position.

People are generally tired of that BS. And yes, it is narcessistic to make everything about you. Without caring for anyone elses view or whether they could have a better understanding than you (already proven by others way more informed than me).

Failing to read the room?

I must assume then that the 48% who voted Remain in the Brexit refendum are irrelevant then albeit that only 18% profess to now be happy with the outcome.

Even @wcorkcanary will find that something of a challenge.

Edited June 23, 2023 by essex canary

[wcorkcanary 4,337]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

Failing to read the room?

I must assume then that the 48% who voted Remain in the Brexit refendum are irrelevant then albeit that only 18% profess to now be happy with the outcome.

Even @wcorkcanary will find that something of a challenge.

I would never try to speak for someone else unless I was asked to, by them, certainly not when asked by you.  Stop  changing the subject back to your petty  campaign @chicken is right you are narcissistic.....everybody else is incompetent  unless they agree with you....classic trait.  

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,297]

11 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

I would never try to speak for someone else unless I was asked to, by them, certainly not when asked by you.  Stop  changing the subject back to your petty  campaign @chicken is right you are narcissistic.....everybody else is incompetent  unless they agree with you....classic trait.  

Ironically, you've also described Monsieur Poulet to a T.

[wcorkcanary 4,337]

1 minute ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Ironically, you've also described Monsieur Poulet to a T.

It's a game of opinions  after all. 

[chicken 2,644]

50 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Ironically, you've also described Monsieur Poulet to a T.

No. Just describes you again. I mean lets do a brief summery.

You didn't like something insignificant. Tried to exagerate it's importance so it'd look like a bigger issue when it wasn't. Ger challanged by several posters about it, then accuse me of being self righteous for accusing you of exagerating the point as part of a vendetta. Then you wrongly assume I don't want change. Then you double down when I point out you hypocritical attempts at insults and then try to resort back to calling me something I'm clearly not.

This is absolutely the case of the princess and the pea.

The more you push back against how small and petty this issue you have, the smaller and pettier it looks. Especially when you only have Essex for company.

[essex canary 506]

1 hour ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Ironically, you've also described Monsieur Poulet to a T.

Monsieur Poulet accuses everyone else of being self righteous but thinks we are going to look back at his previous posts to get an understanding of why he calls himself Monsieur Poulet. Cluck,Cluck.

[chicken 2,644]

14 hours ago, essex canary said:

Monsieur Poulet accuses everyone else of being self righteous but thinks we are going to look back at his previous posts to get an understanding of why he calls himself Monsieur Poulet. Cluck,Cluck.

Very good at trying to twist events aren't we? Others have thrown around 'self righteous', I simply pointed out how it was a more accurate description of their views expressed on here, than mine.

I can't be bothered to tell you why, or how I gained my real life nickname that became my handle on here. All you need to know for your silly retort on another thread is that it isn't a nickname I gave to myself. At least, I hope you realise that's how nicknames work.

Also pollo or kotopoulo would be better reflections of my heritage.

Edited June 24, 2023 by chicken

[Dr Greenthumb 750]

Another sunny day on this forum

[norfolkngood 1,088]

1 hour ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

Another sunny day on this forum

After all these posts have we found out if the are devastated or really devastated or just saying they are devastated ?

[Dr Greenthumb 750]

40 minutes ago, norfolkngood said:

After all these posts have we found out if the are devastated or really devastated or just saying they are devastated ?

I just saw a load of waffle if I’m honest

[essex canary 506]

Some of the issues reflect a creeping Americanisation of our language. The word 'awesome ' is another case in point.

Go for it if you want too.

Personally I prefer the traditional meanings where 'devastated' is primarily associated with non-personal destruction and secondarily with personal destruction with the latter generally meaning events more impactful in nature than simply a colleague moving on or falling short of achieving personal goals

[wcorkcanary 4,337]

5 hours ago, essex canary said:

Go for it if you want too.

Yay  , we've got Ethics ' permission ' to say what we want , ok then ....  ** !