Paul124897 wrote:My focus of discontent is aimed at threads being derailed due to 3 people taking digs at each other and boosting their own egos (FA, Eddie, Tiger) which just lead to meaningless dialogue for the rest of us.
Your ego seems to be on parade here. If I challenge ME that's it, there's no "ego" agenda, it's what he says. If he didn't say it, I wouldn't challenge it.
Paul124897 wrote:It's not just him.
No? Who else, then? (Occasional easily disposed of trolls and infants excepted?)
Paul124897 wrote:Whoever starts it, shouldn't.
Well, maybe not, but if they do?
Paul124897 wrote:Whoever replies to it, shouldn't.
Ah, well. That depends. Trolls and puerile stuff is one thing, but patently unfair, often malicious, always carefully aimed strategies are another.
Paul124897 wrote:What makes it worse is that you're all above 20 years of age, probably with a wife and/or kids but let's be honest - you're acting like kids.
Your superficial opinion. Personally I think ME is far from acting like a kid.
Paul124897 wrote:Debate is good. Where did I say I wanted to read things unopposed?
Let me think; maybe:
Quote:Whoever starts it, shouldn't.
Quote:Whoever replies to it, shouldn't.
Paul124897 wrote:Get your opinions out on the table, but don't try to change somebodies opinion.
Leaving aside the pretty obvious point that most people having debates would like to "win the debate" - which is pretty much the same thing as changing opinions, either of the opponent/s, or the audience, or both - how does your system work? As I understand you, ME can get his opinion "out on the table" - but nobody should respond?
Paul124897 wrote:If someone is being outrageous, just laughing and move on. He/She is entitled to that opinion.
Piffle. I don't have a problem with anyone on these boards that I think posts their honest and fair opinions, I do have a problem with people whose aims seem to me to be to destabilise the club that I follow. Unlike you, I don't want to censor them, much as they might annoy me, but given that they are not censored, why should replies be restricted?
Paul124897 wrote:Now, to draw this post to a conclusion, I have no spat with either of you. As I've said, debate is good. But debate really loving sucks when wading through pages of nonsense.
Debate? Oh, come off it, the last thing ME wants is a "debate". He can't handle debate. That's as good as any reason for challenging the worst of his efforts, as he then implodes. Well, at least until he re-groups. As for "nonsense", well, who am I to judge my own posts? I'd be surprised if any were, by and large, nonsense but it's your opinion.
What I will say though is the McNamara saga was (or so I understood) eventually confined to one particular barracks (this thread) specifically so anyone who felt the urge, or was willing or able to "wade through" it could do so, and anyone else who wasn't so inclined could avoid it. This to me seems very fair. Guess which poster then tries (with fair success) to funnel numerous other threads down the same avenue? (Clue: it's not me). It would be right if all such efforts were moved here whenever spotted. There was talk of locking this thread (which would actually seem odd, since of all the clubs, coaching at Bradford would seem at least as fair game for a topic as anywhere else). I don't care either way, but it will only lead to another explosion of McNamara threads all over the place IMHO.
Like most of us were! How can the team we saw a week last Friday turn into the one we saw last Friday? Its been like riding a roller-coaster watching this lot, although right now we seem to be spending rather too long in the underground dark bit. That's bound to come across in what people (other than the diehard optimists and the perennial negativites) say on here, especially straight after matches.
