Doncaster Cancels Christmas

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="Fat Prophet"]

Why am I bothering to respond to this?  

Yankee, what you glorify as "reason" is your robot brain going clunk clunk.  Robots can be very clever in their own way, but they''re still robots.  Try thinking outside the box occasionally.  If you can''t see that Ron has completely missed the point in his reply to my thread, I really can''t help you.

(Apologies to other posters for interrupting the flow of this thread.) 

[/quote]

So, OK, I''m being obtuse - it wouldn''t be the first time! But I''ve re-read your post & cannot understand the logic of your position. You appear to be insisting that Roeder is telling the truth as he knows it, in which case the board have blatantly lied to him. In that case, he is either not very bright, or very trusting & easily taken in. Put yourself in his position; would you simply take your employer''s word on something as important as this, or make some enquiries on your own behalf? I think Glenn has a bit more nous than you give him credit for. His actions so far do not give the impression of a naive fool.

[/quote]

We seem to be at cross purposes Ron.  I''m suggesting (possibly incorrectly) that Glenn probably HAS taken on trust that what the board has told him is true. (I also believe fwiw that it almost certainly IS true.)

To put myself in his position, if there was such a fundamental lack of trust between me and my employers that I had to go behind their backs to make sure I wasn''t being lied to about something as important as this, I would be looking for another job toot sweet.  The scenario you depict is reminiscent of the last days of Martin O''Neill, and I sincerely hope we haven''t reached that stage already.  If that''s being naive then I''m guilty as charged.

 

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="7rew"]I''m not so sure of the entire premise of this thread.  That the loss of Taylor is catestrophic and will cause the collapse of our defensive abilities and the repeated lapsing into old ways, that his arrival here heralded our revival and that in not signing him NOW we ara sure to a) not get him ever b) not get anyone else either  and c) be relegated.

I central to this premise is that the Doc is utterly worthless as a defender and a dedicated hoofball merchant.  He''s not great, but I suggest you have a look at the passes he has available when he hoofs it - its not like he hoofs it depite players screaming for the ball, is it?  I have repeatedly seem him look up, see no passes on, look up again, see no passes on, look up again, see an opposition player coming towards him, then hoof it.  If whatever pass you make is going to be 50-50, then the 50-50 may as well be as far from our goal as possible.

On to Taylor, I have several points.
1) His arrival did not immeadiately herald our revival.  In fact in his first 3 games we conceeded 8 goals. The most goals we have conceeded in any 3 match period, indeed pick any 3 matches he didn''t play in and we didn''t conceed 8.  It was the arrival/return of Fotheringham, Pattison, Camera and Evans that coincided with our revival.

2) In his time here we have conceeded at 1.375 goals per game.  This contrasts with an average of 1.429 for the other league matches.  This means that Taylor''s presence prevents 0.054 goals per game, prevented 0.428 goals in his time here, and in the rest of the season (say the 23 matches after scunny) would stop 1.242 goals in total (1 goal for every 1666 minutes, 40 seconds played).  I''m not sure this is actually a massive improvement.

as to (a) (b) and (c), neither a or b are proven, just guessed at - Roeder has had 4 loan signings, so I expect him to be able to make some signings, be it Taylor or someone else.  And c, well thats a possiblity whether signings are made or not.
[/quote]

He has been improving withy every game however.  Now is not the time to moan however.  If come February 1st we are sitting in the relegation zone having seen limited funds made available, and after another few Shax/Doc comedy shows, then is the time to whinge.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Fat Prophet"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="Fat Prophet"]

 

It''s not a case of lying or telling the truth.  GR is saying what he appears to believe, ie. that the board have done everything humanly possible.  But how does he know whether they have or not?  According to Doncaster the manager does not get directly involved in financial negotiations, so if GR wasn''t there he doesn''t  know at first hand what actually took place.  All he''s really saying is that the board have told him they''ve done their best, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary he has no option but to believe them.

[/quote]

How does that work? If he believes it, then he isn''t lying. In that case, however, he is either mentally deranged, incredibly stupid or extremely naive. He may not have actually been there when negotiations were ongoing, but I do not for one microsecond believe he didn''t know EXACTLY what was going on.

Or perhaps you think it went something like this:

"Did we get ''im then Mr. Grimsdale? Sorry - Mr. Doncaster?

"Eeeh no, lad. We tried t''hardest but them Brummies are right hard bargainers."

"''Ow much were they after then?

"Now don''t you go worrying about that, young Glenn; you just get out there & tell ''em there''s an extra bowl of tripe in it for ''em if we get another win Sat''day."

"Right-oh Mr.Doncaster"                exeunt

[/quote]

Ron, try and use reason with this woman if you choose but she ( Fat Prophet ) will never, ever accept logical input. She gets a bee in her bonnet and decides she''s going to share the sting and, having done that, she disappears. She is even incapable of understanding her very own input clearly. For example, in her hypothesis, she could replace GR with herself and then, having done so,  ask herself why she chooses to inject negative spin into this interchange rather than simply accept GR''s and the clubs position until a clear outcome on Martin Taylor takes place, particularly as she is even more distant from the situation than GR is. I suspect this kind of thinking would be a bridge too far for Fat Prophet.

[/quote]

Why am I bothering to respond to this?  

Yankee, what you glorify as "reason" is your robot brain going clunk clunk.  Robots can be very clever in their own way, but they''re still robots.  Try thinking outside the box occasionally.  If you can''t see that Ron has completely missed the point in his reply to my thread, I really can''t help you.

(Apologies to other posters for interrupting the flow of this thread.) 

[/quote]

Fat Prophet, you ask yourself in a hand-wringing manner why you bother to respond. It appears the answer is so that you can cast more insults, which is the nature of individuals who place too much dependence on their emotions rather than using logic and brainpower, and I always find the latter far more stimulating. I don''t care whether people are inside or outside of the box so long as they remember the important part is to think . So as to not totally discourage you, however, I much prefer some response (even if it''s emotionally based ) rather than no response so continue to work with what you''ve got. One word of caution on robots. They generally respond to having their buttons pushed. May I suggest you appear to have a far greater propensity for that than your humble servant. 

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Fat Prophet"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="Fat Prophet"]

 

It''s not a case of lying or telling the truth.  GR is saying what he appears to believe, ie. that the board have done everything humanly possible.  But how does he know whether they have or not?  According to Doncaster the manager does not get directly involved in financial negotiations, so if GR wasn''t there he doesn''t  know at first hand what actually took place.  All he''s really saying is that the board have told him they''ve done their best, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary he has no option but to believe them.

[/quote]

How does that work? If he believes it, then he isn''t lying. In that case, however, he is either mentally deranged, incredibly stupid or extremely naive. He may not have actually been there when negotiations were ongoing, but I do not for one microsecond believe he didn''t know EXACTLY what was going on.

Or perhaps you think it went something like this:

"Did we get ''im then Mr. Grimsdale? Sorry - Mr. Doncaster?

"Eeeh no, lad. We tried t''hardest but them Brummies are right hard bargainers."

"''Ow much were they after then?

"Now don''t you go worrying about that, young Glenn; you just get out there & tell ''em there''s an extra bowl of tripe in it for ''em if we get another win Sat''day."

"Right-oh Mr.Doncaster"                exeunt

[/quote]

Ron, try and use reason with this woman if you choose but she ( Fat Prophet ) will never, ever accept logical input. She gets a bee in her bonnet and decides she''s going to share the sting and, having done that, she disappears. She is even incapable of understanding her very own input clearly. For example, in her hypothesis, she could replace GR with herself and then, having done so,  ask herself why she chooses to inject negative spin into this interchange rather than simply accept GR''s and the clubs position until a clear outcome on Martin Taylor takes place, particularly as she is even more distant from the situation than GR is. I suspect this kind of thinking would be a bridge too far for Fat Prophet.

[/quote]

Why am I bothering to respond to this?  

Yankee, what you glorify as "reason" is your robot brain going clunk clunk.  Robots can be very clever in their own way, but they''re still robots.  Try thinking outside the box occasionally.  If you can''t see that Ron has completely missed the point in his reply to my thread, I really can''t help you.

(Apologies to other posters for interrupting the flow of this thread.) 

[/quote]

Fat Prophet, you ask yourself in a hand-wringing manner why you bother to respond. It appears the answer is so that you can cast more insults, which is the nature of individuals who place too much dependence on their emotions rather than using logic and brainpower, and I always find the latter far more stimulating. I don''t care whether people are inside or outside of the box so long as they remember the important part is to think . So as to not totally discourage you, however, I much prefer some response (even if it''s emotionally based ) rather than no response so continue to work with what you''ve got. One word of caution on robots. They generally respond to having their buttons pushed. May I suggest you appear to have a far greater propensity for that than your humble servant. 

[/quote]

That thare Yankee, he dew cum out with sum squit.  He wunt leave me allun.  I dew think he fancy me . . .  [;)]

Happy Christmas [<:o)]

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Not to be misspelled with a W"]I don''t care whether people are inside or outside of the box so long as they remember the important part is to think .[/quote]Funny then, that you should spend so much time playing "chase me" with someone you claim relies upon their emotions rather than thoughts ! [:)][quote]That thare Yankee, he dew cum out with sum squit.  He wunt leave me allun.  I dew think he fancy me . . . [/quote]Dew yew new wart Prophett, Oi reckun yew moight bee roight !

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Fat Prophet"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Fat Prophet"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="Fat Prophet"]

 

It''s not a case of lying or telling the truth.  GR is saying what he appears to believe, ie. that the board have done everything humanly possible.  But how does he know whether they have or not?  According to Doncaster the manager does not get directly involved in financial negotiations, so if GR wasn''t there he doesn''t  know at first hand what actually took place.  All he''s really saying is that the board have told him they''ve done their best, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary he has no option but to believe them.

[/quote]

How does that work? If he believes it, then he isn''t lying. In that case, however, he is either mentally deranged, incredibly stupid or extremely naive. He may not have actually been there when negotiations were ongoing, but I do not for one microsecond believe he didn''t know EXACTLY what was going on.

Or perhaps you think it went something like this:

"Did we get ''im then Mr. Grimsdale? Sorry - Mr. Doncaster?

"Eeeh no, lad. We tried t''hardest but them Brummies are right hard bargainers."

"''Ow much were they after then?

"Now don''t you go worrying about that, young Glenn; you just get out there & tell ''em there''s an extra bowl of tripe in it for ''em if we get another win Sat''day."

"Right-oh Mr.Doncaster"                exeunt

[/quote]

Ron, try and use reason with this woman if you choose but she ( Fat Prophet ) will never, ever accept logical input. She gets a bee in her bonnet and decides she''s going to share the sting and, having done that, she disappears. She is even incapable of understanding her very own input clearly. For example, in her hypothesis, she could replace GR with herself and then, having done so,  ask herself why she chooses to inject negative spin into this interchange rather than simply accept GR''s and the clubs position until a clear outcome on Martin Taylor takes place, particularly as she is even more distant from the situation than GR is. I suspect this kind of thinking would be a bridge too far for Fat Prophet.

[/quote]

Why am I bothering to respond to this?  

Yankee, what you glorify as "reason" is your robot brain going clunk clunk.  Robots can be very clever in their own way, but they''re still robots.  Try thinking outside the box occasionally.  If you can''t see that Ron has completely missed the point in his reply to my thread, I really can''t help you.

(Apologies to other posters for interrupting the flow of this thread.) 

[/quote]

Fat Prophet, you ask yourself in a hand-wringing manner why you bother to respond. It appears the answer is so that you can cast more insults, which is the nature of individuals who place too much dependence on their emotions rather than using logic and brainpower, and I always find the latter far more stimulating. I don''t care whether people are inside or outside of the box so long as they remember the important part is to think . So as to not totally discourage you, however, I much prefer some response (even if it''s emotionally based ) rather than no response so continue to work with what you''ve got. One word of caution on robots. They generally respond to having their buttons pushed. May I suggest you appear to have a far greater propensity for that than your humble servant. 

[/quote]

That thare Yankee, he dew cum out with sum squit.  He wunt leave me allun.  I dew think he fancy me . . .  [;)]

Happy Christmas [<:o)]

[/quote]

Just what I said....more emotion.

[7rew 0]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]

[quote user="7rew"]I''m not so sure of the entire premise of this thread.  That the loss of Taylor is catestrophic and will cause the collapse of our defensive abilities and the repeated lapsing into old ways, that his arrival here heralded our revival and that in not signing him NOW we ara sure to a) not get him ever b) not get anyone else either  and c) be relegated.I central to this premise is that the Doc is utterly worthless as a defender and a dedicated hoofball merchant.  He''s not great, but I suggest you have a look at the passes he has available when he hoofs it - its not like he hoofs it depite players screaming for the ball, is it?  I have repeatedly seem him look up, see no passes on, look up again, see no passes on, look up again, see an opposition player coming towards him, then hoof it.  If whatever pass you make is going to be 50-50, then the 50-50 may as well be as far from our goal as possible.On to Taylor, I have several points.1) His arrival did not immeadiately herald our revival.  In fact in his first 3 games we conceeded 8 goals. The most goals we have conceeded in any 3 match period, indeed pick any 3 matches he didn''t play in and we didn''t conceed 8.  It was the arrival/return of Fotheringham, Pattison, Camera and Evans that coincided with our revival.2) In his time here we have conceeded at 1.375 goals per game.  This contrasts with an average of 1.429 for the other league matches.  This means that Taylor''s presence prevents 0.054 goals per game, prevented 0.428 goals in his time here, and in the rest of the season (say the 23 matches after scunny) would stop 1.242 goals in total (1 goal for every 1666 minutes, 40 seconds played).  I''m not sure this is actually a massive improvement.as to (a) (b) and (c), neither a or b are proven, just guessed at - Roeder has had 4 loan signings, so I expect him to be able to make some signings, be it Taylor or someone else.  And c, well thats a possiblity whether signings are made or not.[/quote]

He has been improving withy every game however.  Now is not the time to moan however.  If come February 1st we are sitting in the relegation zone having seen limited funds made available, and after another few Shax/Doc comedy shows, then is the time to whinge.

[/quote]Those are both very good points and don''t get me wrong Taylor did look very good and I can quite see why people think he is significantly better than the Doc (that doesn''t mean he is, just that he looks better - Crouch looks very ungainly, but he does score goals).  I would also really like us to sign him.   I just don''t think that the world has ended because he has gone away. Some people on here do seem to be kneeling expectantly by the oven at the moment, and that only gets you sore knees.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Fat Prophet"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Fat Prophet"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="Fat Prophet"]

 

It''s not a case of lying or telling the truth.  GR is saying what he appears to believe, ie. that the board have done everything humanly possible.  But how does he know whether they have or not?  According to Doncaster the manager does not get directly involved in financial negotiations, so if GR wasn''t there he doesn''t  know at first hand what actually took place.  All he''s really saying is that the board have told him they''ve done their best, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary he has no option but to believe them.

[/quote]

How does that work? If he believes it, then he isn''t lying. In that case, however, he is either mentally deranged, incredibly stupid or extremely naive. He may not have actually been there when negotiations were ongoing, but I do not for one microsecond believe he didn''t know EXACTLY what was going on.

Or perhaps you think it went something like this:

"Did we get ''im then Mr. Grimsdale? Sorry - Mr. Doncaster?

"Eeeh no, lad. We tried t''hardest but them Brummies are right hard bargainers."

"''Ow much were they after then?

"Now don''t you go worrying about that, young Glenn; you just get out there & tell ''em there''s an extra bowl of tripe in it for ''em if we get another win Sat''day."

"Right-oh Mr.Doncaster"                exeunt

[/quote]

Ron, try and use reason with this woman if you choose but she ( Fat Prophet ) will never, ever accept logical input. She gets a bee in her bonnet and decides she''s going to share the sting and, having done that, she disappears. She is even incapable of understanding her very own input clearly. For example, in her hypothesis, she could replace GR with herself and then, having done so,  ask herself why she chooses to inject negative spin into this interchange rather than simply accept GR''s and the clubs position until a clear outcome on Martin Taylor takes place, particularly as she is even more distant from the situation than GR is. I suspect this kind of thinking would be a bridge too far for Fat Prophet.

[/quote]

Why am I bothering to respond to this?  

Yankee, what you glorify as "reason" is your robot brain going clunk clunk.  Robots can be very clever in their own way, but they''re still robots.  Try thinking outside the box occasionally.  If you can''t see that Ron has completely missed the point in his reply to my thread, I really can''t help you.

(Apologies to other posters for interrupting the flow of this thread.) 

[/quote]

Fat Prophet, you ask yourself in a hand-wringing manner why you bother to respond. It appears the answer is so that you can cast more insults, which is the nature of individuals who place too much dependence on their emotions rather than using logic and brainpower, and I always find the latter far more stimulating. I don''t care whether people are inside or outside of the box so long as they remember the important part is to think . So as to not totally discourage you, however, I much prefer some response (even if it''s emotionally based ) rather than no response so continue to work with what you''ve got. One word of caution on robots. They generally respond to having their buttons pushed. May I suggest you appear to have a far greater propensity for that than your humble servant. 

[/quote]

That thare Yankee, he dew cum out with sum squit.  He wunt leave me allun.  I dew think he fancy me . . .  [;)]

Happy Christmas [<:o)]

[/quote]

Just what I said....more emotion.

[/quote]

It''s rather sad that you seem unaware of the world-changing results achieved by emotion driving logic and brainpower.

OTBC

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Alex"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Im pretty sure we have a different board and manager now though................... [|-)]

[/quote]

We don''t seem to be able to invest a million in a proven member of the playing staff at this time.  And a player who has been improving with every game he played for us, as he got back to match fitness and sharpness.

Back to the Doc/Shax comedy show I guess.

[/quote]

That''s just what Nutty wants y''know.

He''s more than a great fan of the Doc''s.

What he loves is that air of confidence and competence than fans out through the squad in great waves over the field when Doc bestrides our defence.

I really can''t make up my mind as to whether Nutty is really Doncaster''s maiden aunt, a binner plant or simply Delia''s cousin.

He has enough excuses and rationalistions to fill my rubbish bin.

What I do have to put up with from him. Oh dearie dearie me.

OTBC

 

 

[/quote]

Lose the argument - Check

Insult the poster - Check. 

Some things never change Bly [:|]

[/quote]

Yes Bly, don''t for a minute think your opinions are any more important or valid than Nutty''s, just because his thoughts are the opposite of yours. But if you like to look down your nose at people, then be advised it''s a very endearing quality ...

[/quote]

Yes, I know, Alex

So glad that you do too.

OTBC

 

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

BlyBly, you appear to be the master on this forum of providing isolated and random inputs without example or substance. I will be more than happy to react to any examples you can muster provided they are outside of the sphere of love affairs or artistic endeavour. Given that, I would be more than happy to advise you whether I concur with YOUR interpretation of emotion being the force of YOUR world changing results. I do hope you are able to come up with subject matter that is more entertaining than "who started what war first?", otherwise I fear for the direction of this thread ( although I do seem to remember Foghorn including in the first sentence of this thread something about a war chest ). Is it possible you could come up with an example that directly relates to this thread? 

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]

Back to the Doc/Shax comedy show I guess.

[/quote]

That''s just what Nutty wants y''know.

He''s more than a great fan of the Doc''s.

What he loves is that air of confidence and competence than fans out through the squad in great waves over the field when Doc bestrides our defence.

I really can''t make up my mind as to whether Nutty is really Doncaster''s maiden aunt, a binner plant or simply Delia''s cousin.

He has enough excuses and rationalistions to fill my rubbish bin.

What I do have to put up with from him. Oh dearie dearie me.

OTBC

[/quote]

Babes - I''m sure our squad have every confidence in ''The Doc'', in fact the players who play alongside him have come out in the press and said as much. If you look at the stats and not the hysterical rants you would see why.

Doherty has played 11 league games in the centre of defence this season during which we have conceded 12 goals at an average of 1.09 per game. Compare this with Shackell 18 games, 25 goals at 1.39, and Taylor 8 games 12 goals at 1.5.

As pairings: Doherty / Shackell 5 games, 6 goals at 1.2 per game : Taylor / Shackell 7 games, 11 goals at 1.57 per game. The other pairings haven''t had enough games to give meaningful stats but the strongest pairings have all involved Doherty.  Doc / Murray 2 games, 1 goal, Shacks / Murray 2 games 5 goals.

So there''s some more for your rubbish bin. Just sling them straight in without a second glance.

I would be quite happy for us to sign Taylor but to suggest replacing Doherty is a priority, which you have been doing for the whole season, is plain wrong.

 

[yellow hammer 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]BlyBly, you appear to be the master on this forum of providing isolated and random inputs without example or substance. I will be more than happy to react to any examples you can muster provided they are outside of the sphere of love affairs or artistic endeavour. Given that, I would be more than happy to advise you whether I concur with YOUR interpretation of emotion being the force of YOUR world changing results. I do hope you are able to come up with subject matter that is more entertaining than "who started what war first?", otherwise I fear for the direction of this thread ( although I do seem to remember Foghorn including in the first sentence of this thread something about a war chest ). Is it possible you could come up with an example that directly relates to this thread? [/quote]

Yankee, I think football without emotion would be terribly boring, would it not?

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]BlyBly, you appear to be the master on this forum of providing isolated and random inputs without example or substance. I will be more than happy to react to any examples you can muster provided they are outside of the sphere of love affairs or artistic endeavour. Given that, I would be more than happy to advise you whether I concur with YOUR interpretation of emotion being the force of YOUR world changing results. I do hope you are able to come up with subject matter that is more entertaining than "who started what war first?", otherwise I fear for the direction of this thread ( although I do seem to remember Foghorn including in the first sentence of this thread something about a war chest ). Is it possible you could come up with an example that directly relates to this thread? [/quote]

Yankee. Isn''t football a ''love affair'' of both the masses and the rich & famous, whilst also being an intrinsically ''artistic endeavour''.

I mean we know that American grid-iron football is a war substitute, but then maybe it''s just that you''ve been away too long.............and forgotten the emotional poetry at the heart of the English game?

Time to reconnect and rediscover your soul?

One love.

OTBC

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]BlyBly, you appear to be the master on this forum of providing isolated and random inputs without example or substance. I will be more than happy to react to any examples you can muster provided they are outside of the sphere of love affairs or artistic endeavour. Given that, I would be more than happy to advise you whether I concur with YOUR interpretation of emotion being the force of YOUR world changing results. I do hope you are able to come up with subject matter that is more entertaining than "who started what war first?", otherwise I fear for the direction of this thread ( although I do seem to remember Foghorn including in the first sentence of this thread something about a war chest ). Is it possible you could come up with an example that directly relates to this thread? [/quote]

Yankee. Isn''t football a ''love affair'' of both the masses and the rich & famous, whilst also being an intrinsically ''artistic endeavour''.

I mean we know that American grid-iron football is a war substitute, but then maybe it''s just that you''ve been away too long.............and forgotten the emotional poetry at the heart of the English game?

Time to reconnect and rediscover your soul?

One love.

OTBC

[/quote]

I''m connected BlyBly and my soul is ever present and filled with love for the beautiful game. Now, back to the point....is that what you were speaking of when you uttered your line of, "It''s rather sad that you seem unaware of the world-changing results achieved by emotion driving logic and brainpower."

Be honest now BlyBly. Christmas is approaching.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]BlyBly, you appear to be the master on this forum of providing isolated and random inputs without example or substance. I will be more than happy to react to any examples you can muster provided they are outside of the sphere of love affairs or artistic endeavour. Given that, I would be more than happy to advise you whether I concur with YOUR interpretation of emotion being the force of YOUR world changing results. I do hope you are able to come up with subject matter that is more entertaining than "who started what war first?", otherwise I fear for the direction of this thread ( although I do seem to remember Foghorn including in the first sentence of this thread something about a war chest ). Is it possible you could come up with an example that directly relates to this thread? [/quote]

Yankee. Isn''t football a ''love affair'' of both the masses and the rich & famous, whilst also being an intrinsically ''artistic endeavour''.

I mean we know that American grid-iron football is a war substitute, but then maybe it''s just that you''ve been away too long.............and forgotten the emotional poetry at the heart of the English game?

Time to reconnect and rediscover your soul?

One love.

OTBC

[/quote]

I''m connected BlyBly and my soul is ever present and filled with love for the beautiful game. Now, back to the point....is that what you were speaking of when you uttered your line of, "It''s rather sad that you seem unaware of the world-changing results achieved by emotion driving logic and brainpower."

Be honest now BlyBly. Christmas is approaching.

[/quote]

I would imagine that Nelson Mandela''s emotions drove his logic and brainpower to world-changing results, wouldn''t you?

Happy Christmas. Yankee.

OTBC

 

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]BlyBly, you appear to be the master on this forum of providing isolated and random inputs without example or substance. I will be more than happy to react to any examples you can muster provided they are outside of the sphere of love affairs or artistic endeavour. Given that, I would be more than happy to advise you whether I concur with YOUR interpretation of emotion being the force of YOUR world changing results. I do hope you are able to come up with subject matter that is more entertaining than "who started what war first?", otherwise I fear for the direction of this thread ( although I do seem to remember Foghorn including in the first sentence of this thread something about a war chest ). Is it possible you could come up with an example that directly relates to this thread? [/quote]

Yankee. Isn''t football a ''love affair'' of both the masses and the rich & famous, whilst also being an intrinsically ''artistic endeavour''.

I mean we know that American grid-iron football is a war substitute, but then maybe it''s just that you''ve been away too long.............and forgotten the emotional poetry at the heart of the English game?

Time to reconnect and rediscover your soul?

One love.

OTBC

[/quote]

I''m connected BlyBly and my soul is ever present and filled with love for the beautiful game. Now, back to the point....is that what you were speaking of when you uttered your line of, "It''s rather sad that you seem unaware of the world-changing results achieved by emotion driving logic and brainpower."

Be honest now BlyBly. Christmas is approaching.

[/quote]

I would imagine that Nelson Mandela''s emotions drove his logic and brainpower to world-changing results, wouldn''t you?

Happy Christmas. Yankee.

OTBC

[/quote]

I have spent a lot of time over the years in South Africa and have great admiration for Nelson Mandela. More than emotion, I respected his wisdom when, upon leaving prison, he went about seeking change in his country in a steady and progressive manner. To do otherwise would have created chaos and possibly civil war. While his successor continued along the same path there is now emerging a possible new regime that sounds like they are seeking a much more rapid acceleration to improve the quality of life for the black population. I know that Nelson Mandela, who will be 90 on his next birthday, is concerned that too much emotion rather than wisdom will take things backwards rather than forward in his country. Incidentally, did you know that he was  named after our very own Lord Nelson.

Happy Christmas to you as well BlyBly.     

[Cheerio 0]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="Attack Barclay 2nd Half FFS"][quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]

What you mean fluking 3 great loans, and then prudently only signing up one of them?

[/quote]Care to share what you''d have done differently? How about your insight on the efforts made to sign Lurch? Would you have signed Harper? Signing Hucks wasn''t good enough for you?[/quote]

Would I have signed Crouch and Harper - Yes if we could afford them.  Much of the reason we went down from the premiership (apart from Worthy being out of his depth) was we waited till half way through the season to sign a striker.

As for Hucks, as I remember it we almost didnt get him either.

[/quote]Harper was an animal and was returned early if you remember....evidently not. Weeks of negotiations went into tryin to sign Crouch but Villa refused to meet our valuation.What was the delay gettimng Huckerby got to do with our board.... it was his agent. Or should they have just paid the fella what he was asking?The club would have a very short future with you in charge LOL

[Cheerio 0]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

If any club has a war chest isnt that evidence of under-investment?

Damned if they do and damned if they dont [:D]

[/quote]Invest then..... the board have.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="Attack Barclay 2nd Half "]

Harper was an animal and was returned early if you remember....evidently not. Weeks of negotiations went into tryin to sign Crouch but Villa refused to meet our valuation.

What was the delay gettimng Huckerby got to do with our board.... it was his agent. Or should they have just paid the fella what he was asking?

The club would have a very short future with you in charge LOL
[/quote]

RE: Harper: one bad tackle does not an animal make.....  maybe to someone of limited intellect it does however.....  perhaps you?

RE Crouch:  we were unwilling to pay the 2 million asking price.

RE Hucks:  as I remember his wages were subsidised from outside the club

so stop talking your crud matey LOL....  [|-)]

[macdougalls perm 0]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]

RE: Harper: one bad tackle does not an animal make.....  maybe to someone of limited intellect it does however.....  perhaps you?

[/quote]

In general I think you''re right but with those sort of violent two footed leg breakers you are very wrong, in my opinion. They can''t be put down to being an accident as you have to be conscious that you are lunging at someone''s legs with both feet and studs showing. And its not yellow and green tinted glasses cos I''ve only just got round to ''forgiving'' Russell for his one after about seven years. I think that players who tackle like that are sc*m (bad one in FA Cup yesterday) and I think perhaps you''d feel differently if you were the one left with a snapped leg or shattered kneecap.

As I say with most other contact or fouls you are right anyone can find themselves doing it and it is a part of the game to an extent, but those two footed/studded lunges are unforgivable!